Anomalies in new 9/11 footage

by Simon Aronowitz

simon at thoughtcrimenews dot com

7th September 2003

New footage of the WTC planes has been released. Apparently the man who made the video didn't realise what he had. The New York Times has released a redacted version of the footage, but one of the frames is very intriguing.

I don't even know what to make of the white flash in the middle, but can you see something on the bottom of the plane body that shouldn't be there? I have added an arrow pointing to the object in question.

The NY Times is touting this footage as the only other film in existence which has the first plane, besides the work of the Naudet brothers who were making a film about New York's firefighters.

Here are the shots NYT provided of the first plane. The arrow in the second shot is the work of the NY Times:

Maybe it's just me, but looking at these pictures and the shots from the Naudet footage, the first plane looks too small to be a Boeing 767:

Naudet footage

There is a hypothesis about these two airborne weapons of destruction. Check out `The Incredible 9-11 Evidence We've All Been Overlooking'.

Update - Monday 8th September 2003

I have received several emails from readers about the pictures posted yesterday.

Here are some extracts:

"When looking at the pictures Mr Spencer's argument sounds convincing,however what concerns me is this. If Mr Spencer is correct then what happened to the boeing 767's and their passengers. Unles I went dyslexic and missed a part of the article Mr Spencer did not offer any plausible theories as to where these planes and their passengeers went to.

LC"

"I processed the image of the plane that looks like it has an anomolous attachment to the fuselage. The first image is an enlargement and uses sharpening filters. The second rendition is stripped of color with enhanced sharpness and contrast/brightness.

Something is definitely there that was not built by the manufacturer.

T"

"I agree with your assessment of the new film.  But... 

Where did the real planes go?  And the people on them?  What about the cell phone calls from the passengers? 

Thanks.  Great job.

CA"

One reader offered the following analysis of the new pictures:

"i dont know if you guys created these fakes or you are getting duped by someone.

contrast one of the new pix with one of my original screen captures from 'the day'

two things jump right out at me.

1) building is already blackened in the new one and pristine in original

2) flying angle of the aircraft is altogether different, more steep turn and more pointed downward in the new

W"

My response:

"Thanks for your email.

No, I didn't do anything to these pictures. They are from the NY Times, as the story on my site clearly indicates. If you check out the link to the NY Times you will see that they are from the new footage that has been `discovered'.

All I did was take screen grabs from the Shockwave presentation and post them, adding the big black arrow. That's it.

If you think it's fake, address your anger to the New York Times.

What I will say is that the shot of the second plane appears to be taken from a different angle to the picture you sent me.

As for the building being blackened, I can't see it. It looks like the shot has been blown up from VHS camera footage whereas the coverage on the day would have been broadcast quality.

If you think I've still missed something, please let me know."

W replied:

"here is the pic i am referring to with the "blackened area" circled and a big arrow pointint to it. this is quick ugly work. heh
for the record, there is no anger directed at you.
i have my opinions on who did what to who that day and i dont think it was 19 arabs.
i also dont think anyone in the "arab terrorist" world was capable of grounding our air force for nearly 60 minutes that day and the lack of response by them is the worst part of it all.
as for their claims that no-body knew what was going on....
on "der tag" (the day) i lived just south of the entrance to Cheyenne Mountain (NORAD) and passed by on my way to work just as the radio news was reporting the second aircraft attack.
i have no photos and no way to prove it to anyone but the entrance was already "sealed" with hum-vees and at least a squad of light infantry.
somebody knew SOMETHING was going on pretty damn early in the game.

No way to prove it one way or another though.
I didnt even really THINK about it for several weeks.
Like everyone else, I was in shock and buying everything we were being told for quite a long time.
sigh....

W"

Personally I think that the blackened area is simply an old building in front of the WTC, and I seem to recall having some photos of the damage done to it, taken while I was in Manhattan last year.

One reader offered the following explanation for the white flash:

"I have a few thoughts about that photo. 1. The bright spot you see inthe photo is a reflection of a (infrared targeting laser). The camera
that was used to take that photo is most likely sensitive to infrared radiation. Judging by the size of the beams (spot) I would quess the
laser was stationed about 5 or 7 miles away from the WTC.
The object on the underside of the plane maybe a combination missile pod/ guidance system.
I've worked with lasers for over 25 years. The word LASER is and acronymfor L.ight, A.mplification, by S.timulated, E.mission of R.adiation.
That picture is even more damming to the elite then you can now imagine.
But not for long.... just watch!

M"

For reference, here is a picture of a normal Boeing 767, with thanks to UnderReported.com.

Picture from FlightPix.com

In response to the common theme of what happened to the planes, readers may want to digest Professor Kee Dewdney's hypothesis `Operation Pearl'. [ Click here for locally cached copy if physics911.org is down]

Tuesday 9th September 2003

I've received a lot of emails about the new 9/11 pictures and the anomalies. Now that readers have had a chance to look at them and have a think, let me say that I do not necessarily believe that there was actually anything on the bottom of that second plane. I put the pictures up because that frame looked bizarre, and because I've wondered to myself if the depiction of the first plane was too small to be what they said it was.

This website is called `ThoughtCrimeNews.com' for a reason. I see the pace the world, media, politics, education and public consciousness moves and it all works against thinking for oneself. I wanted to prompt thought and debate about the suggestion that there WAS something there. When the `blackened area' was pointed out I stated straight away that I thought it was the building in front of the WTC tower, yet I have received emails from people who it seems cannot read English, or who cannot digest full sentences without asking for help.

I am prepared to agree with those who suggest that the blob/bulge/strange object `underneath' the second plane is perhaps nothing more than a digital artefact. The frame is after all taken from a blow-up of video-camera footage. But there is the possibility it was something else. The white flash is probably just the sun glaring off a water tower. I am not qualified in photo analysis, nor am I qualified in aviation technology. I am, however, superbly qualified in asking difficult questions and being a pain in the arse, as we say in England.

So I wanted to prompt questioning and debate about these pictures. If I hadn't spotted the blob and put out the pictures, someone else would have, and perhaps would have spun it as conclusive proof that those weren't the original planes that hit the WTC towers. I have one reader suggesting that the man responsible for the new footage, Mr Hlava, may be an intelligence asset. I'll bring you more about this, whether it is confirmed or conclusively denied. I will say that the timing of the release of the new tape is a little suspicious. I mean, he didn't know what he had? Give me a break!

Hey guys, don't shoot me down. I personally believe the attacks were an `inside job' and that elements of the US government, or shadow government, have a lot of questions to answer about the 9/11 attacks. Former environment minister Michael Meacher articulated just a few of these questions very succinctly in his article in the Guardian on Saturday. As I said would happen, rather than debate Meacher on the evidence and the questions raised, everyone the powers that be can dig up has been used to rubbish his argument.

David Aaronovitch (absolutely no relation whatsoever) has sunk his teeth into Meacher in the Guardian today, but he has fallen for the trap that Meacher managed to avoid:

"This is conspiracy 101. Say something is a fact which isn't. Then ask questions, rising up through incompetence, gradually to mal-intention, and then - abruptly - demand who might be behind it all. Cui Bono, my dear friends?"

Aaronovitch has unfortunately believed the accounts given of the fighter jet responses. Rather than look at the accounts of what jets scrambled from where and at what times and more importantly how these changed over time, he has instead just swallowed up everything that General Myers, Robert Mueller et al can feed him on a spoon. Wake up David, they're lying to you. 

Despite these strenuous smear efforts, Meacher is not alone. There are many people who agree with his line of questioning and actually go much further, as does former German minister Andreas von Buelow who accuses the US of piloting the planes into the towers by remote control in his book about 9/11.

I have read a suggestion that by putting out the pictures on Sunday and presenting them the way I did, I must be some kind of intelligence asset put out on the web to steer people away from discussing the justifiably pertinent issues surrounding the 9/11 attacks. Let me assure you that I am no such thing, for those who would take my word as sufficient. For those of you who don't, well what can I say? Very little. Except look at the stuff I've been carrying on this site, and ask yourself how many intelligence assets would actually give credence to any of this in the first place? Again, there is a reason for calling this website `ThoughtCrimeNews.com'.

If I was MI6, would I phone into the Alex Jones show and agree with him? Doubtful. For those of you who listen to Alex Jones, I was calling in using the name `John' until I decided to go public to contribute to the daily spin cycle of the news. Read into this what you will, but I did it to protect myself, until I realised it was safer out in the open.

Enough of that. I've said my piece.

Wenesday 10th September 2003 - Update on physics911.org website

I received an email from Dr Dewdney:

"We suffered a possible denial-of-service attack over a month ago, although it may also be that links to physics911.org had previously been posted (prematurely) on other sites that assumed we were live. We weren't.

Until we go public in a few days, the site will have been been private, used only by the fifteen-odd members of the Scientific Panel Investigating Nine-eleven, or SPINE for short. We are an all-professional panel consisting of two aeronautical engineers, a mathematician, a computer scientist, a physicist, a cellphone engineer, a physician, and sundry other relevant professions, not to mention an intelligence officer. We are getting new applicants all the time and the level of expertise (and, therefore, credibility) continues to climb. We have been cooperating over the web to develop as much new, reliable material as we can. I am nearly finished an analysis of the Pentagon crash that makes it physically clear, even to relatively unknowledgable people, that the absence of relatively intact wings, albeit somwhat crumpled, is conclusive. No 757.

I hope I have addressed your concerns. Please feel free to post this message if you feel so inclined.

All the best,

Kee Dewdney

akdewdney@uwaterloo.ca

(519) 679-8105
http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~akd/"

Thursday 11th September 2003

There's more on the new 9/11 footage and anomalies. Several pages have been put up at Jeff Rense's website. People with more expertise than I are attempting to explain what's wrong with the picture and hopefully this subject will receive the attention it needs to prove or disprove various hypotheses. As I have been warned though, don't let it distract too much from the evidence already out there showing that 9/11 is a fraud on the public for the purposes of the new world order. I'm happy to hand on the baton, so to speak, having broken the story about the strange object on this website.

If there IS something on that plane that shouldn't be then we have another nail in the coffin of lies spewed by the US federal government and the media.

I'll be keeping an eye on the issue, but I don't want to focus on it too much lest I be labeled the crazy guy who thinks that planes didn't hit the World Trade Center. Just because I can voice my views regularly doesn't mean I necessarily have to. I can play their game to my advantage too, you know. Too much dwelling on single issues just plays into the hands of the fraudsters who can make out that Elvis is sitting on the beach in Monte Carlo sipping champagne with Lord Lucan, if they chose to do so. Besides, 9/11 is not the only thing I have views on, but because of the timing, I could hardly avoid discussing it.

Video Shows Distinct, Inexplicable Object On Underside of Jet (Requires Flash)

AC Mechanic: Object Should Not Exist

Boeing Fuselage Anomaly Should NOT Be There

What Is This On The Bottom Of The Plane?

Mystery Solved?

If anyone sees a new link about this, please let me know.

Tuesday 16th September 2003

I'm still trying to make sense of the 9/11 videos. I don't know quite how to get my head around the issue of apparent editing of the DVD of the 9/11 Firefighters, removing the flash before the plane enters the WTC tower.

Without all the footage to see for myself, in its original format rather than digitised, it's hard to tell what can actually be seen.

One thing I am increasingly certain of though, is that the first plane that hit, `Flight 11', was not a Boeing 767. It was while I was looking at one frame of footage as it hit that I saw what had previously just washed over me.

Look at the picture below.

I've done nothing to this whatsoever, just taken a grab from one of the videos and cropped it down to fit on the page.

This frame comes after the `flash' and the `plane' is almost completely now inside the tower. There is very little tail sticking out, so clearly the wings would have made contact with the tower by this point.

What's wrong with this picture? Where's the damage from the wings? Certainly to the left of the `plane' body, there is nothing. No damage whatsoever. The plane looks  more like a worm disappearing into a hole. Does that look like a Boeing 767 to you?

The sun is coming in from the left hand side of the frame, as demonstrated with the shots of the second plane, flight 175 which approaches from the other direction. The shadow to the right of the plane entry must be from the remaining `plane body' that is still outside the building. But there is NOTHING on the left hand side of the `plane'.

I have clearly just committed a ThoughtCrime by suggesting that the first plane to hit it's target on 9/11 was not what they said it was. Some will no doubt call me loopy. But take a look at the picture and decide for yourselves. Think about it. Where is the damage from a 767? This isn't the supposedly `reinforced' Pentagon. They can't use that excuse, even though it's flimsy even for the lack of evidence in DC. No damage. Why? It's too small to be a 767.

Discussion of flashes had distracted me from noticing this. I kept playing the footage over and over looking for the flash, and I couldn't figure out why things didn't look right until I saw this frame after the plane had made contact with the tower and, more importantly, fully appreciated its importance.

I know the footage from the Naudet brothers is a little blurry, but it's all we have, apart from the `new footage' that shows a speck in the sky. Despite this, any damage to the building would be apparent, despite the enlargement and any digital artefacts. Look at the picture - it's clear that the appearance of the tower to the left of the entry point is still untouched and uniform.

Simple trigonometry would also show that the plane is too small to be a 767 - the footage of Flight 175 hitting the other tower shows a much larger object flying towards its mark and clearly it's a passenger jet albeit possibly with some customisation (what IS that object on the underside?) Considering the promity of the firefighters and their accompanying cameramen, the Naudet brothers, to the World Trade Center, there is no doubt that if the first plane was a Boeing 767 it would have filled more of the frame, even in a blurry shot.

Of course some will say that this is a distraction from the real issues of prior knowledge and military stand-down, as well as issues like the activities of the Pakistani intelligence chief. However, if we want to try and establish the true course of events that day, we can't do so unless we actually know what hit what and when. Hey, I could be wrong. Maybe it is just digital artefacts and poor footage that have led me to a false conclusion. But people have spent nearly 40 years pouring over the Zapruder film of JFK's assassination. I've heard it said that if it wasn't for the film, the Feds could have argued that aliens landed in Dealey Plaza and took out the President because there would be nothing to counter that stand.

If it turns out that what hit Tower 1 was not actually Flight 11, a Boeing 767, but rather something else, then deducing what it was and where it came from will help explain the events of that day.

I think that even a lot of Americans could agree that there is a cover-up over the events of 9/11. Most people can accept that there's a `cover-up', even if they're not prepared to consider what is being covered-up. To propose, as I have, that it was an inside job, is a step to far for some. So suggesting that in fact two planes weren't in fact planes and not just one (the Pentagon, and WTC Tower 1) will have some just switch off and label me a crank. 

I know this issue was covered by the page at Serendipity but it takes one's own epiphany to appreciate what others have been seeing for some time.

This has brought me back to the apparent explanation for the collapse of the towers - you know, fuel fire heating up the metal causing the building to fail.

Approximately 3-4 seconds after `Flight 11' has disappeared into Tower 1, the fireball erupts from within the building but has almost completely dissipated within 15 seconds of the impact. After this, we only see dark smoke coming from Tower 1, indicative of smouldering rather than fire. What brought the tower down then? And why did Tower 2, the south tower, which was hit second, collapse first? Especially considering most of the fuel was combusted on impact OUTSIDE the tower. Fuel fires my arse.

Watching the footage of Tower 1 collapsing with VirtualDub, it is clear that the puffs of smoke emanated before the building began to collapse. The official account would lead us to believe that the puffs of smoke and debris are caused by the collapse of the building, but how can this be if the collapse doesn't start until after the puff?

Anyway, I'm devoting too much time to this and there is a lot of other stuff going on in the world. I am no expert in architecture, aviation or photo analysis. But I did study physics at A-Level and I believe I have the basics in gravity down pat. I'm just engaging my brain as best as I can, which is more than they want me to do.

Those who rule us would like nothing better than for us to just soak up the headlines and the spin, without even reading the meat of the story. Any story. Thinking is going too far, because you'd actually be able to spot the lies and the bullshit.

2nd July 2004

For info on the 9/11 Independent Inquiry which took place in San Francisco, 26th - 28th March, click here.

For exclusive video footage of the Inquiry, go to the Video page.

Interviews with David Ray Griffin and Michael Meacher added to the site. See the main page.

To buy a copy of David Ray Griffin's new book, `The New Pearl Harbor:
Disturbing Questions About the Bush Administration And 9/11', click here.

More news, analysis of the `War on Terrorism', 9/11, current events,  and the mass media available on the main page.